alt.cellular.t-mobile - now available

Phil,

Sorry to say but SBC/ATT "KC News" in MO does not yet have
alt.cellular.t-mobile.

Don

"Phil Schuman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> it's now being carried by the SBC news servers
>
> "Sven Golly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Ben Skversky" <[email protected]> wrote in news:2hC0g.2371$e55.2043
>> @trnddc02:
>>
>> > So when are all of the TMO people coming over to the new newsgroup?
>>
>> Give it a few months. And x-post to both.
>>
>> --
>
>
>

---

› See More: alt.cellular.t-mobile - now available

bummer -
I guess each SBC/ATT regional news server
has to have the add request made locally...

"Don Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil,
>
> Sorry to say but SBC/ATT "KC News" in MO does not yet have
> alt.cellular.t-mobile.
>
> Don
>
> "Phil Schuman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > it's now being carried by the SBC news servers
> >
> > "Sven Golly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Ben Skversky" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:2hC0g.2371$e55.2043
> >> @trnddc02:
> >>
> >> > So when are all of the TMO people coming over to the new
newsgroup?
> >>
> >> Give it a few months. And x-post to both.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >
> >
>
>

There's no particular reason to use SBC's regional news servers.
I use the central one, news.prodigy.net, and it carries alt.cellular.t-mobile.
You can use any of SBC's news (NNTP) servers with the same username
and password.

--
John Richards



"Phil Schuman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> bummer -
> I guess each SBC/ATT regional news server
> has to have the add request made locally...
>
> "Don Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Phil,
>>
>> Sorry to say but SBC/ATT "KC News" in MO does not yet have
>> alt.cellular.t-mobile.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 21 Apr 2006 16:01:01
GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Actually, you specifically indicated that there was a lack of need
>>
>> True, but that's not what you claimed.
>
>What I claimed was " But you were greatly resistive to the idea of
>alt.cellular.t-mobile from the get go". Your resistance came in the form a
>brain storming arguments against the formation of alt.cellular.t-mobile, not
>excluding what I just mentioned.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but again, I actually just pointed out the
arguments against it, the alternatives to it, and the practical difficulties
of promulgating it. I even suggested how you might go about it. I won't be
surprised if it doesn't work, but I'll be happy to congratulate you if it
does. Time will of course tell.

>>>and several
>>>people took exception to it.
>>
>> Actually a very few.
>
>Semantics. If you must argue ... we can define sex as not being oral while we
>are at it.

Again, I think you're being way too sensitive and touchy.

>> So why are you so annoyed at me? Do you get pissed off at everyone that
>> doesn't agree with you.
>
>No. In fact, I rarely have had issue with your (in fact never until now). My
>only annoyance with you is as mentioned, your resistance to
>alt.cellular.t-mobile. If I thought you had given valid reasons, or straight
>opinion, I would not care, but it seems to me that your "reasons" are
>generated from an emotional response.

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I actually don't have any "resistance"
to it, and I think you're reading too much into what I wrote, which was not at
all emotional. I really don't care one way or the other -- after all, I don't
even follow the T-Mobile group.

>The "confusion" you cited that would be
>caused by creating the group as opposed to continuing to use the voicestream
>group seems about ludicrous to me. I think "several" other people agree.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then so am I. There are yet others that
agree with me, but that others agree with either you or with me is irrelevant.

>>>>>Let me ask you this? Did you send a message to AT&T requesting the group be
>>>>>added?
>>>>
>>>> No. I have no interest in the group, so why should I? Have you done that?
>>>
>>>I sent the control message and had the group added locally. Easynews picked
>>>it up from its peer shortly after. Supernews as well.
>>
>> Some do that; some don't.
>
>Some do what?

Some news providers do pick up pretty much anything in alt; others apply
various types of screening.

>>>Why would I ask AT&T
>>>to pick it up ... I am not their customer.
>>
>> Because you're trying to promulgate it. If you don't get a critical mass of
>> news providers, then it may not take off. [shrug] Up to you.
>
>As a non-customer, I can not ask a provider to carry a group ... correction,
>most providers will ignore requests from non-customers.

Actually you can ask, and do it effectively if you go about it properly --
that's how I got alt.cellular.cingular off a fast start.

>BTW ... I don't like to nit-pick *****ing, grammar or word choice, but I am
>curious about your choice of promulgate; you have used it twice now. Making
>the group known is an announcement. I think propagate is a much better choice
>here. I am just curious as to the reason you chose that word.

prom·ul·gate v.t.
1. to make known by open declaration; publish...

Seems appropriate to me.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:35:59
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Actually, you specifically indicated that there was a lack of need
>>> True, but that's not what you claimed.
>>
>> What I claimed was " But you were greatly resistive to the idea of
>> alt.cellular.t-mobile from the get go". Your resistance came in the form a
>> brain storming arguments against the formation of alt.cellular.t-mobile, not
>> excluding what I just mentioned.
>
><snip>
>
>It's up on sonic.net.

A small local provider. On the other hand, it's still not carried by big
providers Google Groups and at&t Worldnet.

>Can anyone figure out why Navas went so non-linear over
>alt.cellular.t-mobile?

Anything but. I don't care one way or the other. I merely pointed out the
obvious objections. I went through much the same process on
alt.cellular.cingular. "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the
kitchen."

>It's pretty clear why he lies so much about Cingular,

You're the one lying about Cingular.

>but why was he so
>adamantly against alt.cellular.t-mobile?

I'm not. Again, I don't care one way or the other.

>The only plausible reason that I could come up with, is that he doesn't
>want new newsgroups when a carrier changes names because if the AT&T
>acquisition of BellSouth goes through, then Cingular will become AT&T
>Wireless, and alt.cellular.attws, which has become pretty dormant since
>Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless, might take the place of
>alt.cellular.cingular (which is a group that Navas originally proposed).

Again, I don't care one way or the other.

As usual, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in order to
further your personal vendetta against Cingular (for your wife's poor
coverage) and against me personally (for exposing your many fabrications and
misstatements).

Have a nice day. Really. You clearly need it.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:11:51 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> So why are you so annoyed at me? Do you get pissed off at everyone that
>> doesn't agree with you.
>
>If it were true, it would be a step higher than you. You simply avoid those
>who don't agree with you- generally because they are much better informed
>than you.

I only avoid those that have nothing meaningful to say.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006
> 19:11:51 -0600,
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> So why are you so annoyed at me? Do you get pissed off at everyone that
>>> doesn't agree with you.
>>
>>If it were true, it would be a step higher than you. You simply avoid
>>those
>>who don't agree with you- generally because they are much better informed
>>than you.
>
> I only avoid those that have nothing meaningful to say.
>
> --


No- you avoid those who know more than you and don't back down because the
Great John Navas says otherwise. This NG is full of threads you have
suddenly avoided because you caught showing your lack of knowledge.